MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Could you give me an
example ofan instance where there is
subjectivity in drawing conclusions from data
in the field of biology?

MS. STURM: I'm having trouble
understanding what you mean.

Could you be more specific in terms of
what you mean by "subjectivity"?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Well, Dr. Ayala, do
you have a present sense of what the word
"subjectivity" means to you?

A. Well, perhaps, in face of the same
evidence, different people could have
different interpretations, not based on
objective fact, I presume.

Q. I think that's an excellent
definition. With that definition in mind ...

A. Okay. I hope the Attorney General
will understand the fact that it is not easy
for me to find such an example. I am trying
hard. So, I want to be allowed a few more
moments.

165

Yes. For example, the extent to which
animal groups may be judged to be organized as
societies.

Q. As society?

A. Societies. Very fuzzy boundary line
there as to what is a society.

Q. To a layman, could you explain to me
what you mean by the term "societies"?

A. For example, a beehive is clearly a
socially-organized group of bees. On the
other hand, a pair of doves, who remain as a
pair for all their lives and breed the young
ones, is not clear that it's properly a
society.

Q. Let me divulge my lack of knowledge
here and ask you a question about dividing
animals into species. Is that an exact
science?

A. Normally, the exact science is only
mathematics, and by the definition I
understand of what exact science is.

Q. Well, is there any degree of
subjectivity in dividing animals into species?

A. Oh, in a few cases, yes; in the
majority of cases not.

Q. Do you have an example where that

166

occurs?

A. Surely. There are populations at
different degrees of divergence. At which
point science calls them different species,
it's somewhat arbitrary. It's clear that
before a certain time, in the existence, they
are not different species; it is clear after a
certain time they are different species; and
the period in between there is often
subjectivity.

Q. Is it a necessary criteria of
different species that the two species cannot
breed?

A. Will you rephrase -- or repeat the
question.

Q. Is it a necessary criteria when you
are formulating the dividing line between
species, that the species cannot interbreed?

A. Yes, in sexually reproducing
organisms, species are identified by the fact
that they can not interbreed.

Q. Did you attend in August of this
year a meeting in Iowa City of the Education
Committee of the Society for the Study of
Evolution?

A. In August what?

167

Q. Of 1981.

A. What day of August?

Q. I don't know.

A. Okay.

Q. I assume that a trip to Iowa City
would be memorable.

A. I have been in Iowa City this summer.
but I don't think in August.

Q. Perhaps in July?

A. Yes.

Q. Sometime before August 30?

A. Yes, I attended a meeting there of
the Society for the Study of Evolution.

Q. Right.

A. That was not your question.

Q. My question was a meeting of the
education committee of the Society for the
Study of Evolution?

A. I don't think there was a meeting, a
formal meeting, of such committee.

Q. Okay. But there was a meeting of
the society itself?

A. Yes.

Q. And at that meeting, did you make
some comments concerning Creation Science to
the effect that the society must not get into

168

any, quote, "evolution versus religion," close
quote, stances?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you explain to me what you
mean by that?

A. Well, that very much refers to what
I said earlier; that is, first, there is no
opposition between evolution and religion, and,
second -- and this I did not say earlier, that
it's only a political ploy to present the
teaching of creationism as opposition of
evolution to the teaching of creationism as
opposition to religion, that is a political
ploy.

May I ask where you are reading or
quoting from?

Q. Sure.

A. I remember the situation, yes.

(Reviews document)

Q. To your knowledge, has any
evolutionary writer or theorist ever
postulated a theory of evolution that includes
the concept of a creator?

Q. When did Teilhard de Chardin
postulate an evolutionary theory which
included a creator?

A. Several of his books were published
starting around 1955, and some down to very
recently. Many of the books very explicitly
refer to the theory of a creator.

Q. Could you give me a summary of how
he viewed a creator within an evolutionary
theory?

A. Yes. To the best of my own
interpretation of his writings, and as can be
stated in a few words, he says that God can
create the world in any way that God chooses,
and that the evidence of science shows that
God has done so through the natural laws that
lead to evolution by having created the
natural laws in evolution.

Q. Would you consider Teilhard de
Chardin to be a competent scientist?

A. In paleontology and other fields of
evolutionary science, yes.

Q. Would you find discussion of his
theories in his writings in this regard in a
public school classroom to be appropriate?

A. Not in science per se, unless they

171

were in passing allusions.

Q. So you would have no objection as
long as it was not dwelled on at length; is
that correct?

A. Yes, because that's not a scientific
subject per se.

Q. You mentioned the fact that Darwin
had postulated a creator in his evolutionary
theory.

A. Stretching a little bit what he says,
as we discussed two days ago.

Q. And you would have no objection to
his writings which discuss a creator being
discussed in a public secondary school science
classroom, would you?

A. I must reformulate the question in
order to agree. I would not have objection to
the writings of Darwin being read or being
taught in public schools, including his
allusions to a creator, so long as it is done
in passing.

Q. And the Bergson, what is his theory
of creation which includes a creator?

A. This will be much more difficult for
me to remember in detail. I have not read
Bergson for many years now. He's primarily a

172

philosopher of evolution.

Q. Do you recall, and I certainly would
not try to hold you to your statement on this,
but do you recall generally what he talked
about in his writings concerning an creator in
evolution?

MS. STURM: You only need answer to
the extent you remember.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

That God was the author of the world and
God made creatures that possessed what he
called elan vital which was a sort of impulse,
a simple-minded definition of his elan vital,
a sort of internal impulse that propelled the
evolutionary process.

Q. Is this sometimes referred to as
vitalism?

A. Bergson would be considered by many
a vitalist, yes.

Q. And would you state again, with
regard to Bergson's writings, that you would
have no objection to their discussion in a
public classroom as long as the creator was
alluded to and was not dwelled on?

THE WITNESS: Well--

MS. STURM: Objection. The language

173

of the witness was it was mentioned or alluded
to in passing.

THE WITNESS: Yes. The writings that
I'm familiar with of Bergson are primarily
philosophical writings, and would not be
appropriate for scientific classes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. With regard to the
other two writings that we mentioned, to make
sure that I understand your position, is it
fair to say that you would not have objection
to their inclusion and discussion in a public
school secondary classroom as long as the
concept of creator therein is not given
substantial emphasis.

THE WITNESS: No. I'll rephrase it.
Again, it would seem to me not inappropriate
if, in discussion of, say, Darwin, in a
classroom to mention that it was -- and in the
Origin of Species he mentioned that there is
grandeur in this view of the world where the
creator does not need to create everything
individually, every living organism

174

individually, but has created laws by which
these organisms themselves evolve.

It seems to me that allusions to
convictions or thoughts that are not strictly
scientific by people who are otherwise good
scientists are appropriate even in a science
classroom.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Are you familiar with
an organization called the Committees of
Correspondence?

A. I am familiar with the Committees of
Correspondence.

Q. Could you describe for me what that
is? Or what they are, I suppose, is more
appropriate.

A. The best description of what I know
of them is grassroots organizations at the
state level, for the purpose of being
concerned with appropriate teaching of biology.

I think it's primarily biology. I am not
quite clear it is only biology.

Q. Is one of their purposes as you
understand it to oppose the teaching of
Creation Science?

A. To oppose the teaching of it as
science, yes.

175

Q. Have you had any involvement with
this group?

A. Will you clarify what you mean by
involvement?

Q. Well, let's start with the broadest
sense. Have you ever discussed this before
with anyone?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you discussed it with some of
the individuals who are associated with the
Committees of Correspondence?

A. Yes.

Q. Who have you discussed it with, the
members?

A. Well, at least with Dr. Stanley
Weinberg, who is one of the liasons of
Committees of Correspondence.

Q. Are you familiar with the biology
text that Dr. Weinberg has authored?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware that in a biology text
written by him one page is devoted to two
columns, one of which says, "Creationists" and
the other of which says "Evolutionists," and
gives the contrasting views of the two groups?

A. I have already stated that I am not

176

familiar with the book.

Q. Is Dr. Weinberg the head of the?
committees of Correspondence A. I don't
think that he's the head of Committees of
Correspondence.

Q. What role does he play with the
group?

A. To my understanding, he's the
liaison for the State of Iowa.

Q. Did you earler state that he
organized the committees, to your knowledge?

A. I don't know that he organized them.

Q. Do you know what the IAS Panel on
Controversial Issues is? If I might speculate,
perhaps it means the Iowa Academy of Science.
I don't know.

A. I am guessing that you are quite
right. Your guess is as good as mine.

Q. Have you served as a liaison or in
any capacity to the Committees of
Correspondence?

A. No.

Q. To your knowledge, are the
Committees of Correspondence -- let me
rephrase that. To your knowledge, do the
liasons and the participants of the Committees

177

of Correspondence try to keep their existence
a secret?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Have you written a letter to someone
in California asking them to serve on the
Committees of Correspondence, to your
knowledge?

A. If I understand your question
correctly, the answer would be no. Asking
them to serve? I --

Q. That's fine.

(Document more particularly
described in the index marked
for iden. Exhibit No. 5)

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. I have shown you
Exhibit 5, which is a letter addressed to you
from Stanley Weinberg dated November 9, 1981,
in which he states to you that he is glad that
you are agreeable for assuming a role in the
leadership team of the embryonic California CC,
or Committees of Correspondence.

Could you tell me what the occasion was
that you received this letter and what role
you took?

178

A. I think the correspondence in the
hands of the attorney general will allow you
to follow the case with more precision than my
memory, but I am willing to quote from memory
if that is what is wanted.

I think that documentation is available.
Do you want me to recall?

Q. I am not trying to in any way trick
you, I can assure you. I have been given lots
of documents today, and I have not had a
chance to go through all of them myself. If
there are other documents that you are aware
of --

A. The full relevant correspondence
should be there.

(Document more particularly
described in the index marked
for iden. Exhibit No. 6)

THE WITNESS: Yes, I recall all this
correspondence quite well, and I think that is
what it is referring to, the previous letter.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. So after reviewing
Ayala Defendant's Exhibit 5 and 6, do you
recall, first of all, taking a role in the

179

leadership team of the California Committees
of Correspondence?

A. To the best of my knowledge there is
not a California Committee of Correspondence,
let alone a leadership team.

Q. Could you describe for me what if
anything that you did in regard to the
California Committees of Correspondence?

A. Dr. Stanley Weinberg asked me to
bring to the attention -- rather, to deliver
to Thomas Dukes some materials concerning some
activities of the Correspondence, and Dr.
Stanley Weinberg suggested that Dr. Jukes
might be a good liaison of the committee.

I performed the duty, as stated in my
letter of October 15th, after having failed to
communicate by telephone. There is more to
follow, but I think that is what you were
after.

Q. So at Stanley Weinberg's request you
did contact Thomas Jukes and request that he
serve as the California liaison for the
Committee?

A. I believe I did not request so. I
said "Stanley Weinberg has suggested that you
serve," I believe. Why don't we read it? I

180

hope you will appreciate the difference.

Q. So then you simply sent some
information to Jukes concerning the Committees
of Correspondence. What else, if anything,
have you done in relation to the Committees of
Correspondence, formally or informally?

A. Dr. Tom Jukes suggested that I be
the liaison, at which point I said I couldn't.
I was much too busy, among other reasons. But
I would consider cooperating with a liaison if
a committee were established with a proper
liaison, yes.

Q. Have you taken any further action in
regard to the California Committees of
Correspondence?

A. To the best of my recollection, that
letter of Dr. Weinberg that has been
introduced as Exhibit 5, I believe, is the
last event in this process.

Q. Do you know if the Committees of
Correspondence are currently functioning
within this state, first of all?

A. Within California? I believe they
are not.

Q. Are you aware of whether they are
functioning in any other states?

181

A. Yes, in Iowa. And I understand that
in thirty some other states.

Q. And just to make sure the record is
clear, you've stated that one of the purposes
of the Committees is to oppose the teaching of
Creation Science?

MS. STURM: Objection. I don't think
that that was the witness' statement.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's what I'm trying to
determine.

THE WITNESS: I think one of the -- to
my understanding, one of the objectives is to
object to the teaching of any religious
convictions under the guise of science,
including Creationism, in the general meaning
of the word, yes.

Q. I think we're quibbling over
semantics a bit. Creation Science is viewed
by this organization or these individuals as
religion under the guise of science; correct?

A. I suppose. I might want to qualify
still farther.

Q. Have you been involved in any other
groups or any other efforts to oppose the
teaching of Creation Science?

A. I'm always uncomfortable with your

182

mentioning the opposition of the teaching of
Creation Science, because my activities in
this matter, as the record shows, are not
directed to the teaching of Creation Science
but the teaching of Creation or religious
belief as science and interfering with the
teaching of evolution.

So I think it would simplify matters, at
least I would not have to reword the questions,
if you could address them in those terms.

Q. Doctor, my problem is we're dealing
with a lawsuit and an act of the State
Legislature of Arkansas which specifically
talks about Creation Science, and I can
understand, appreciate, that you may have some
difficulty perhaps acknowledging what Creation
Science is, in your mind, given your position
on this issue, but I would like to try to
refer to it, since those will be the terms
which we will be dealing with in trial, and
those are the terms which are defined in the
bill.

MS. STURM: Though you may continue to
clarify your terms and use what terms you feel
most comfortable with in responding to the
question. If it means we take a little longer,

183

so be it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Now, have you been
involved in any other efforts concerning an --
let me see if I can assist.

Have you been involved in any other
efforts concerning, as you put it, I believe,
the proper role or the proper teaching of
evolution?

A. Yes, other than those that have
already been mentioned earlier today, at least
one, when I was asked by some parents, I think
from the school district of Livermore in the
state of California, to write a letter to the
effect of, you know, what was science in this
context and what was not. I suppose that
would be a simple way of doing it.

I think my letter is also in the record,
then.

If I man continue --

Q. Excuse me. I would like to see if I
can locate that before we move on.

(Document more particularly
described in the index marked
for iden. Exhibit No. 7)

184

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. I show you what's
been marked as Defendant's Exhibit 7.

THE WITNESS: I would like to continue
my answer, to simplify things for the future,
that also I recall on a couple of additional
occasions to have had correspondence where
people have asked me for clarifications in
these matters informally, and not members of
organizations, to the best of my knowledge.

Now we can go back to this document.

Q. Have you finished reading it?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was the occasion of this
statement?

A. I was at the time at a meeting, I
believe, in Washington, and I was contacted by
telephone by a person, who I presume to be the
person that is here mentioned as Ruth Ann Hunt,
as to whether I would be willing to comment on
these matters and have my views presented to
the Livermore School Board.

And at the time and at that moment off
the top of my head, I stated what is Exhibit 7.

Q. You state in here in Exhibit 7 that
"The origin of the world or of living things
by Creation is not a scientific explanation in

185

that it is not a process that occurs by
natural laws."

Could you explain, elaborate what you
mean by that?

A. If one says that the reason why you
exist the way you are is because God created
you, that way does not tell anything about
natural laws or natural processes.

Q. What if the origin of the world or
living things is explained by natural laws but
is also, I guess, qualified, if you will, by
the statement that the creator might have used
the natural laws to create the world or living
things?

MS. STURM: Is that a question?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. I'm asking him.

THE WITNESS: Yes, that is fine as far
as it goes. Then what we want to talk about
in science are the natural laws.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Well, the reason I ask
that question is, reading that sentence that I
just quoted to you, there seems to be an
indication that "Creation" could not have
occurred by natural laws. Is that a fair
reading of that?

A. Definitely not. I would encourage

186

the attorney general to read some of my
publications.

Q. In your opposition to the
introduction of what is called Creation
Science in Act 590 into the public school
classroom, how much of it is based upon the
detriment you see to science and how much of
it is based upon what you see as a detriment
to religion?

I'm reading from Defendant's 7, and there
seems to be an implication there, Doctor, that
you think it will be a detriment to religion;
is that correct?

A. Oh, yes. In this case, like in most,
I am asking to talk as a scientist, and as far
as the, quote-unquote, "interests of science"
are concerned, so that's my primary interest
too.

I have some concerns about the other, too.

Q. Why do you feel that the
introduction of Creation Science into a
science classroom would have an adverse effect
on religion?

A. Among other reasons, for the ones
stated there. People are taught that the
fundamental dogmas of religion are not subject

187

to the possibility of being false, but rather
are absolute truth.

Anything which is introduced in the
science class as science is thereby put into
question, as it were, because it is always
possible that something might not be true.

Q. Is it your understanding of what is
termed Creation Science in Act 590 that it is
based on some absolute truth and therefore
does not have the degree of being tentative
that science requires?

A. Will you repeat the question, please.

Q. Is one of the criteria of what is
science, as you understand it to be that a
scientific theory is always somewhat tentative
and subject to later modification?

A. Yes.

Q. And is part of your reasoning for
your position on Act 590 the fact that you
feel that Creation Science lacks this
tentativeness?

A. I don't see how I can answer that
with a yes or a no, frankly.

Q. Well, do you feel that Creation
Science does lack the tentative element of a
scientific theory?

188

A. I think it lacks many other things
much more important.

Q. I understand you may think there are
other things, but do you consider that to be
one of its shortcomings?

A. As it is presented in the Act and so
far as I can make sense of the presentation
there, I think not. I mean it is presented
that that could be scientific concept.

Q. Is it also presented there as if it
could be subject to disproof?

A. I think it is presented there that
way, yes.

Q. Is the concept of the insufficiency
of mutation, for example, in bringing about
all living kinds from a single organism, is
that subject to disproof?

A. That mutations are insufficient?

Q. Right.

A. You mean that the proof will be
therefore that mutations are sufficient?

Q. I'm quoting from memory, and I think
accurately, as to one portion of the
definition of Creation Science which talks
about the insufficiency of mutation to bring
about all living kinds from a single organism.

189

A. I think anybody who knows anything
about mutations knows that mutations are
insufficient to bring about evolution.

Q. So that is subject to disproof?

A. I'm sorry. The things which are
subject to proof or disproof are theories or
laws or principles, even perhaps statements,
but statements as such are not of great
interest to science.

I am unclear as to what is being asked.
Is it being asked that proving that mutations
are insufficient is possible?

Q. As a matter of theory, in trying to
look at whether something is a scientific
theory.

A. I think that is possible. I don't
know who would want to waste energy into it
because it's so obvious that they are
insufficient, but it is possible, yes.

Q. Looking at Defendant's Exhibit 7,
would you consider that to be a fair summary
of your position on this issue?

A. Of part of my position. I was
responding to some specific questions, yes.

It was also stated, you know, off the top
of my head so is not as precise as I might be

190

if I were writing on the subject. And it's,
of course, not explaining things as much as I
might want, again, in a publication as I have
in other places, but I think it's a fair
statement of my position in the relevant
matters.

Q. Would you anticipate that your
testimony that you'll be giving in this case
will consist in part of some of the statements
or ideas expressed in Defendant's Exhibit 7?

A. I must say I don't know what I will
be asked. I presume that there will be some
relation to the statements in the first part
of it, yes. I presume.

Q. Have you been given any instructions
to your testimony?

A. The attorney general should
appreciate by now that I don't take
instruction easily from anybody.

Q. By the term "instructions," I mean
any sort of suggested areas of testimony that
you will be going into, or requested areas.

A. I think only in the more general
terms, a matter of evolution, theory of
evolution.

Q. You have met with the plaintiff's

191

counsel for at least a day, have you not?

A. For a few hours.

Q. During the conduct of those
conversations, did you become aware of the
areas in which you would be testifying?

A. Only in the most general terms, as I
have stated.

Q. To the extent that it was general I
would still like for you to give me your
current understanding of your testimony in
this case.

A. I believe what is wanted is my
knowledge as to the theory of evolution, my
knowledge as to the relevant facts, my
understanding of what is science and what is
not. And I take that to be the primary
aspects of my expertise that are wanted in
this case.

Maybe the attorney general will have
helped them to realize they can use me in
other ways through these inquiries, as he has
unraveled some other knowledge of mine.

---
---
---
---

192

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. In Exhibit 7 you
state that "Science is an intellectual
enterprise that seeks a natural explanations
for natural processes."

When by the scientific inquiry, science
cannot explain some aspect, what does science
do? I mean, as a general principle, does it
just --

A. You don't have explanation, you may
have to find it somewhere else, like in
religion or other places.

Q. What if science could tell us that
it is impossible that something happened
according to natural laws?

A. If science were to tell us it's
impossible...

Fine.

MS. STURM: What's the question?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. My question is, your
previous statement is that, as I recall, that
if science doesn't have the answer to

193

something, it just means that it doesn't have
the answer yet, as I understand it; is that
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And then what if, through the
scientific method of inquiry, one is led to
the result -- to a deadend, if you will, that,
as a matter of the natural laws, what we
observe is impossible?

MS. STURM: What's the question?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. I'm asking, where is
science left then?

It's not just that there is no answer,
there's an impossibility there.

A. That something is impossible, or
just that we don't have an explanation for it?

You are asking me what if science will
conclude that something that we know to be a
fact is impossible?

MS. STURM: Is your question would
science conclude that. There seems to be a
number of questions. Would science conclude
that? Is that your question? What would a
scientist do if it were to conclude that?

MS. STURM: I'll Just note for the
record that that is an assumption which the
witness has not adopted as his own.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Assuming that
science, in resorting to the scientific method
of inquiry, could be led to the result or
conclusion that something which has been
observed could not or cannot be explained
according to natural law.

A. The question is, I presume, what
scientists will do, or science?

Q. What will scientists do?

A. They will conclude either the
observation is somehow mistaken; or, if that
would not be questionable, they would conclude
that, according to the natural laws as we now
know them, that could not be explained, it's
not accountable for.

Q. If something could have occurred by

195

chance, and the probabilities of this
occurring were one in ten to the power of 40
thousand, as a matter of probabilities, would
you say that that is -- well, my question is:
Would that be something akin to being
impossible?

A. If something was truly the
probability of ten to the minus 40,000th power,
which I think is what you said, one divided by
ten to the 40,000th --

Q. I was actually saying -- well, maybe
so. One in ten to the power of 40,000.

A. Okay.

Q. One in ten with 40,000 zeros after
it, as I understand it.

A. Okay. (Draws diagram)

Is that what you mean? One divided by
ten to the 40,000 power, this one tenth --

I presume that's what you mean. I'm not
trying to trap you.

Q. The way I have seen it formulated,
Dr. Ayala, is just one in ten and then with a
40,000 --

A. That would be this.

Q. I think it would be the same.

A. When you say it verbally it's

196

ambiguous. That way is fine.

If the calculation were correct,
something which has that probability, I would
take it to be in fact impossible.

Q. Did you assist the California
Attorney General's office in the preparation
of the so-called Seagraves case?

A. Yes.

Q. What was your involvement in that
case?

A. The Deputy Attorney General
consulted with me by telephone and at least
once was in my office. And he asked me
whether I would be willing to be an expert
witness.

Q. Did you testify in that case?

A. No.

Q. Did you give a deposition in that
case?

A. No.

Q. Approximately how many hours did you
spend assisting the Deputy Attorney General on
that case?

A. Ten. Very rough guess.

Q. Did I understand that your
involvement was requested by the Attorney

197

General's office here in California?

A. To the best of my recollection.

Q. Dr. Ayala, have any of the other
organizations or professional societies of
which you are a member adopted a position
formally or informally on Creation Science as
it's defined in Act 590?

A. As it is defined, not. The American
Society of Naturalists, I think, decided also
in 1980 to establish a committee, in effect,
somewhat similar to those of the committee in
the Society for the Study of Evoluton.

Q. Have you participated in that
committee?

A. No.

Q. According to your curriculum vitae,
you have served on several professional
journals, including, for example, "Evolution."

And you served as an associate editor for
two years there. That is a refereed journal;
is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And in your capacity as an editor,
did you personally review articles submitted
for publication?

A. Yes.

198

Q. To your knowledge, were any articles
ever submitted on the issue or subject of
Creation Science?

A. No.

Q. For your tenure as associate editor
of "Paleobiology," were any of the articles
submitted to you for review concerning
Creation Science?

A. No.

Q. In your services on the editorial
board of "Biosciences Communications," have
any articles been submitted for your review of
Creation Science?

A. No.

Q. Would the same be true for the
editorial board of the "Brazilian Journal of
Genetics"?

A. That's correct.

Q. For the "Journal of Molecular
Evolution"?

A. That's correct.

Q. And as the associate editor of
"BioScience"?

A. That's correct.

Q. Have you had other articles
submitted to you from other journals for

199

review and comment?

A. Concerning the subject matter of --

Q. Apart from this subject matter. Any
subject?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. Have any of these articles concerned
Creation Science?

A. No.

Q. To your knowledge, have any of the
publications that you have listed on your
curriculum vitae as having served on ever
published an article on Creation Science?

MS. STURM: I know for the record that
none have been submitted, so ...

MR. WILLIAMS: To any of these journals,
I'm sorry.

MS. STURM: That's what the witness's
testimony has just reflected.

MR. WILLIAMS: No. As I understand his
earlier testimony, he has personally never
reviewed any.

MR. STURM: That's right.

MR. WILLIAMS: Which were submitted for
publication. My question is now a larger
question.

Q. To your knowledge, has any article

200

ever been published in any of these journals
on Creation Science?

A. The precise answer would be no, to
my knowledge. I have some vague recollection
that, in both "Evolution" and "BioScience," at
some point. some years back, some article was
published to that effect. But it is very
vague, so ...

Q. To you r knowledge, have any articles
on Creation Science been submitted for
publication in these journals?

A. No. I mean, within recent times,
I'm assuming. No.

Q. Some of the other journals which you
have reviewed articles for, do you know
whether any articles on Creation Science were
submitted to them for publication?

A. You would have to try to build up my
memory about each journal, which I think would
amount to quite a few.

Q. I don't know what journals you have
reviewed articles for, so --

A. Well, let me, off the top of my head,
say that -- and to show that I'm in good faith --
that the answer would be no, but I would want
to try to recall also some journals for which

201

I have reviewed at one time or another
articles -- which I had a vast number -- and
it might take me some time to recall.

Q. Well, if your answer would be no,
then there's no need to recall the journals.
I will certainly accept your recollection on
that point.

A. Okay.

Q. Now, your answer is to my question
as to whether you had personally reviewed any.

Do you know --

A. To that, it is a definite no.

Q. And do you know, or would you have
the means of knowing, of your own personal
knowledge whether any articles on Creation
Science had ever been submitted for
publication to these other journals which you
have served?

A. That's when I would say no, probably
not; but I would like to -- I mean, I could
say no, but I could -- it would be more
precise to say probably no, until I could help
my memory by going through trying to recall
what journals I have reviewed. Because I
review not only for scientific journals but
for philosophical journals and all sorts of

202

journals from time to time, because of my very
diverse expertise.

For example, I would have to make an
effort in recalling whether I have in my
review of articles for journals of theology,
and I might have. Or philosophy, where such
might have been submitted.

Q. All right. Let me ask one final
question, I think, on this area.

Would you be in a position, Dr. Ayala, to
be informed as to all of the articles which
are -- the subject matter of all of the
articles which are submitted for publication
to all of these journals which you have served?

A. No.

Q. So, there might have been articles
submitted on Creation Science that you would
not be aware of?

A. Yes.

Q. In your training in theology, did
you study creation as a religious doctrine?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall how many courses you
might have taken which may have considered the
subject of creation?

A. It will be in at least two kinds of

203

courses: one, courses in dogmatic theology,
where the main tenants or the main beliefs of
Christianity were being discussed; and, second,
in the courses in biblical exegesis,
explanation of text.

Q. Do you have a rough idea of how many
courses you might have taken which would cover
creation in both of those areas?

A. Well, I don't think there was any
single course dealing with creation; I think
several courses probably every year. At least
one may have discussed at some point or
another creation, yes.

Q. Would it be fair to say that in your
religious and theological studies you have
studied creation in some detail?

A. Surely.

Q. And, I suppose, in your tenure or
service as a priest, you would have been
acquainted with the concept of creation as a
doctrine of your religion, would you not?

A. Yes.

Q. Prior to the first time you heard
the term "Creation Science" and you became
aware of the general controversy over Creation
Science, had you ever thought of creation in a

204

way which was non-religious?

A. Yes.

Q. I'm not trying --

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. When had you thought that --
can you recall now -- of creation in a
non-religious way?

A. Many times.

Q. For example?

A. In terms of artistic creation. I am
very interested in art.

Q. When you see something like that, a
work of art, do you think about that as being
an effort of creation?

A. By some definition of creation, yes.

Q. And in that work of art, or that
creation, the artist has taken some matter and
put it in some form, has he or she not?

A. Yes.

Q. And that is one definition for
creation?

A. Yes.

Q. Apart from that definition of
creation, have you, as it relates to the
origin of the world and of man, ever thought
of creation as a non-religious doctrine?

205

A. It would be difficult for me to be
clear as to what is being asked.

Q. Okay.

A. Can you rephrase it?

Q. Let me see if I can rephrase it.

My question is, apart from this artistic
creation that you spoke of, when you have in
the past thought about the concept of creation
as it related to the origin of man, the origin
of the earth and the universe and origins
generally, have you ever considered creation
in other than a religious context, in your own
mind?

MS. STURM: I think there is a lot in
your question. You've said creation generally,
creation of the universe, creation of mankind --

MR. WILLIAMS: Creation as it refers to
origin, is what I'm really speaking of. If
the question is unclear, I'll --

MS. STURM: And your question is whether
the witness has ever thought about creation in
non-religious terms?

MR. WILLIAMS: Correct.

A. Neither religious nor artistic, I
take it, that is what you are asking?

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Right. We have

206

excluded artistic and the concept of religious
creation.

A. I would say yes, I have thought
about that, yes.

Q. Can you give me an example of how
you would have thought about it --

A. For example, with respect to the
origin of the universe, I have tried to give --
to explore as much as possible the problem of
how the universe may have come about -- that
is, the very beginning -- yes; so I have given
it thought.

Q. Do you label that a creation?

A. Well, I have given thought to the
possibility that the universe may have come
from nothing but an act of creation, yes.

Q. And you have given thought to that
in a non-religious way?

A. Yes. Trying to find out natural
explanations, yes.

Q. Could you enlarge upon what your
thoughts have been in that regard?

A. Very unsuccessful.

Q. But you have thought about the idea,
then, of a creation of the universe in a
non-religious way, but with the concept of a

207

creator in there somewhere?

I'm not trying to place words in your
mouth, I'm trying to understand, Dr. Ayala.

A. We have not mentioned the creator,
because then you change the rules of the game.

Q. All right.

A. You have asked me what I have
thought about the possibility of -- I mean, we
were specifically speaking about the origin of
the universe from nothing --

Q. Yes.

A. And I say, you know, as a
possibility, as a non-religious possibility,
that this is an event that might have been
explained by natural laws, and I have been
very unsuccessful in trying to find answers.

Q. Did you think of any mechanism that
might have been used?

A. Yes.

Q. What mechanism, non-religious
mechanism, did you think about?

A. Spontaneous generation, the eternity
for perpetual existence of matter, you know,
since infinity. I find both equally
unsatisfactory.

Q. Is that part of that steady state

208

theory?

A. Yes.

Q. Dr. Ayala, if someone could talk
with you, and someone who you considered to be
a competent, well-qualified scientist, and I
would like for you to assume for a moment --
and I know this is a big assumption on your
part -- to assume that they presented to you
scientific evidence for creation; could you --

MS. STURM: I'll have to ask that you
clarify the question.

I have the sense that your notion of
creation and the type of creation that Dr.
Ayala has been discussing for the last 15
minutes may not be the same. I want to be
sure that we're talking in the same terms.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. Dr. Ayala, do you
have difficulty in understanding the question?

A. In this case, yes. I think you
meant with respect to the origin of the
universe itself -- that is, the origin of
matter from nothing -- and I would prefer if
you, for the moment, restrict it to that,
because we're simply --

Q. Fine. If someone had presented to
you scientific evidence for the creation of

209

the universe from nothing, could you accept
that as a scientist?

A. As a science or scientist?

Q. A scientist.

A. I could accept as a scientist. I
will always accept the --

Q. Could you as a scientist accept that
evidence?

A. I think any evidence which is
relevant to any scientific issue, I am ready
to accept, yes.

I hope you appreciate the fact that for
me there is a contradiction in terms in
talking about scientific evidence and creation.

Q. I understand that. I know I'm
asking you to do a lot of bending of your own
personal scientific beliefs.

A. Yes. Ultimately, I'm open minded.

Q. Let me pursue this for a moment
further.

If someone who wa a well-qualified,
competent scientist presented to your
satisfaction scientific evidence for an age of
the earth which was approximately, let's say,
10,000 years old, would you as a scientist
have any problem accepting that?

210

A. I will accept the evidence and weigh
it, all the evidence. I could accept it very,
definitely.

Q. If the same scientist could come to
you and give you evidence, scientific evidence,
for the existence of a creator, a supernatural
force, if you will, could you accept that?

A. In this case I cannot conceive of it
as a matter of principle, because scientific
evidence and supernatural are absolutely as
contradictory as white and not white.
Supernatural, by definition, is non-natural.
Science concerns only natural.

To me, you are asking a contradiction
that has no answer.

Q. Right. So, I think the answer to my
question is you could not accept that.

MS. STURM: I don't think that's what
the witness --

A. You're asking an impossibility.
Could you accept if white were presented as
not white? Could you accept that?

MS. STURM: I'm objecting to the
question, and the witness has stated that it's
impossible for him to answer the question with
a yes or no because the question is
contradictory in its own terms; so I think
it's just a question that a yes or no answer
will not be possible for it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. What you are, in
essence, saying, are you not, Dr. Ayala, is
that you could not -- you cannot conceive of
scientific evidence for a creator?

A. I'm sorry, unless you qualify what
you mean by "creator," I would not agree with
that statement. I don't think that's
equivalent to what was being said before.

Q. Okay. A creator as would be
conceived with supernatural powers?

A. Will you be able to accept something
as being natural and not natural at the same
time? Are you willing to accept that?

That's what you're asking me.

How can anybody accept that. It's a
contradiction in terms.

212

Q. Well --

A. Unless you reword the question
differently, you know ...

MS. STURM: I think that the views of
Dr. Ayala on this point are fairly clear.

I have the sense that, perhaps, you'd
like to get him to say it in different
language, but unless there is some additional
point that you would like to get in this area,
I think it would probably be beneficial to
move on.

MR. WILLIAMS: Q. What is supernatural?
Is that a static measure, or could that be
subject to change?

A. I suppose either. It can be -- a
supernatural concept or supernatural
phenomenon may be conceived of either as
static or changing.

Q. Well, if you were to define
supernatural as being above and beyond the
laws of nature as we know them --

A. I could not -- I would not define
supernatural in that way. That, maybe, is
part of our problem.

Q. Well, if it were -- if it were --

A. Supernatural, for me, is something

213

which is outside nature, period. Not as we
know it, but it is not part of nature. I
think you understand now the problem.

Q. Yes.

MS. STURM: I'm going to object to the
line of questioning. I have the sense that
the questions are attempting to get the
witness to speak in terms that he obviously
does not agree with and thinks that, in and of
themselves, are inconsistent.

I don't see that it is fruitful, and I
think it is somewhat misleading.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Well, I think my
question is -- they may not be fruitful;
that's for later determination. But I'm
really trying to understand something here
that I don't have an understanding on, and I
don't want to belabor the point, and I will
move on just as quickly as possible.

Q. When you say that it's nature -
something outside of nature -- but is it not
true that we simply -- we have not fully
fathomed, if you will, nature?

RSS Syndication

Antievolutionists Say the Darndest Things

Antievolutionists often express outrage over alleged incivility from those who oppose their efforts to evade the establishment clause of the First Amendment. But they have no difficulty in dishing out the abuse themselves. Here is a sample from the Invidious Comparisons thread that documents egregious behavior on the part of the religious antievolution advocates.

IDC advocate Phillip E. Johnson:

Gould’s uncomfortable situation reminds me of the self-created predicament of Mikhail Gorbachev in the last years of the Soviet Empire. Gorbachev recognized that something had gone wrong with the Communist system, but thought that the system itself could be preserved if it was reformed. His democratic friends warned him that the Marxist fundamentalists would inevitably turn against him, but he was unwilling to endanger his position in the ruling elite by following his own logic to its necessary conclusion. Gould, like Gorbachev, deserves immense credit for bringing glasnost to a closed society of dogmatists. And, like Gorbachev, he lives on as a sad reminder of what happens to those who lack the nerve to make a clean break with a dying theory.